There was an article today in the LaTimes (Read It) that tries to defend Hillary's tenure on the Wal-Mart board.

So, the LaTimes is trying to convince us that Hillary went to Wal-Mart and chatted about the Environment (recyclable packaging) and "bringing women into Wal-Mart."

The punch line of all this, of course, was that "after hillary left," things went back to normal so, obviously, she wasn't brought onto the board to "reform wal-mart" or clarify their "views on women."

And the LaTimes had to note Hillary's failure because, if you look at wal-mart today, there is no evidence that she cared about the rank-and-file workers or their communities and I was left to believe that the board's committes acted like smoke screens which smelled like nice incense but hid hillary's true function: a lobbyist and, just like Cheney, who invited his energy buddies over, Bill Clinton, most likely, knew exactly what Wal-Mart wanted and, in the end, he delivered NAFTA and China to them and proved just how little the environment, labor and women actually mattered.

For Hillary to gain popularity, I think that this pseudo-journalism-- a sort of "soft porn," has to be discarded and the real Hillary has to come through because, otherwise, the blogosphere will burn those false images to the ground and we'll have a president with 40% support again.

Specifically, if Hillary wasn't able to embed a positive legacy into wal-mart-- with regards to labor, environment, health care and women, why would her presidential legacy be any different?

With none of the democrats exciting anyone, Ron Paul is looking better all the time. New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who the Clintons have always liked, is now talking about a billion dollar independent run.

so, does anyone think that either Ron Paul or Bloomberg could cause an upset or even become "major contenders?"

what I find interesting is the "new conspiracy theory" about MySpace blocking Ron Paul's message: YouTube Ron Paul Conspiracy Video and I think that more oddball stories can be found on google, digg and other blogs as well (from what I can tell, they're multiplying like rabbits).

What I found wierd? CNBC (source) had this to say about where Ron Paul ranked:

"9. Ron Paul, Texas congressman, Last Ranking: -- "

"The anti-war Republican stood out, and his answers were the talk of the spin room -- well, parts of it, anyway. Our problem: until he starts to take votes from someone else, we don't know where to place him."

Since when did a politician become "unrankable?" Is CNBC simply not ranking Paul because he's an uncontrolable first place contender? and prefering to ignore poll data by debasing and adulterating it in the same way they do with exit poll data these days?

all I know is, I gave a few bucks to Ron Paul for his courage!

but, for all I know, Ron Paul was there to simply get people to turn on their TV's and meet the others.

update from national review: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” Paul said. “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. source

go ron paul, go! this is the first time i've heard someone brilliantly topple the "fight them before they come hear" argument by Bush.